ArticleRMD open2026
Effectiveness and safety of interleukin 6 receptor inhibitors versus conventional immunomodulatory therapy in steroid-refractory polymyalgia rheumatica.
Article in RMD open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of interleukin 6 receptor inhibitors (IL-6Ris) and conventional synthetic immunomodulators (csIM) in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who received glucocorticoids (GC) and initiated a new therapy for PMR.
methodsWe evaluated the effectiveness and safety of IL-6Ris in a retrospective comparative cohort created from the US Medicare fee-for-service medical and part D prescription claims data. Patients with PMR, on GC, without prior IL-6Ri exposure and initiating IL-6Ri/csIM therapy were identified. These patients were categorised into csIM-naïve and csIM-experienced cohorts and matched using direct methods and propensity score methods. Primary endpoints were time-to-GC discontinuation and time-to-minimal GC use (≤2 mg/day or stop GC) through year 1. Incidence rates (IRs) for adverse events of special interest were reported for IL-6Ri and csIM initiators through year 2.
resultsWe included 415 matched treatment pairs (187/228, csIM-naïve/csIM-experienced). IL-6Ri initiators were more likely to discontinue GC (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; p=0.031) or achieve minimal GC use (aHR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.58; p=0.025) by year 1 versus csIM initiators. At year 1, IR (95% CI)/100 patient-years for primary hospitalised infections was higher for IL-6Ri initiators versus csIM initiators (12.2 (95% CI 8.9 to 16.3) vs 5.7 (95% CI 3.6 to 8.6)); however, it was similar for year 2 (5.8 (95% CI 3.3 to 9.6) vs 6.4 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.1)). For other events of interest, the IRs were low and comparable in both groups.
conclusionsIL-6Ri therapy was more effective as a steroid-sparing agent than csIM for PMR with no new safety findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.